Initially, stray dogs caused the small and quite solved conflict in our society. In general, its decision was consolidated to that for these animals someone was charged, having assumed some obligations to society. And was simple sociological poll which would reveal all positions, all pros and cons, all specifications and public comments enough, having allowed the government to come thus to the compromise solution of rather stray dogs, the decision which would suit all parties in our society.

However, such poll of the population from the government not only didn't take a place, but the government decided to settle this problem the methods, without looking at all at opinions subordinated, at all without having wished even to penetrate into a practical and social essence of this conflict.

Certainly, directly to accuse the government that it sponsors "dogs hunters", we now can't as, we have no direct proofs and proofs of this "cooperation" concluded besides our will, besides our opinion, at us behind the back.

But the simple logic leads us to such conclusion. Judge for yourself. If "dogs hunters" - aren't late law-enforcement structures if complaints to them from the population - are senseless and useless, so they, probably, are encouraged with the government?

At the level of charge we can't approve it as, I will repeat, we can't unambiguously prove it. But we consider to suspect of it ourselves in the right.

First of all that fact forms the basis for such suspicion that work with the population in the sphere of this problem the government really wasn't conducted. Any public discussions, any sociological polls concerning destiny of homeless animals - it wasn't carried out.

Thus, we consider for themselves dangerous further to be under the leadership of such leaders. After all, it turns out that anybody won't ask our opinion, so, none of the management not in the answer for potentially dangerous social conflicts. To solve these conflicts while they still are subject to peaceful and constructive settlement - the government doesn't gather as it is visible. And it, at least.

Initially, stray dogs caused the small and quite solved conflict in our society. In general, its decision was consolidated to that for these animals someone was charged, having assumed some obligations to society. And was simple sociological poll which would reveal all positions, all pros and cons, all specifications and public comments enough, having allowed the government to come thus to the compromise solution of rather stray dogs, the decision which would suit all parties in our society.

However, such poll of the population from the government not only didn't take a place, but the government decided to settle this problem the methods, without looking at all at opinions subordinated, at all without having wished even to penetrate into a practical and social essence of this conflict.

Certainly, directly to accuse the government that it sponsors "dogs hunters", we now can't as, we have no direct proofs and proofs of this "cooperation" concluded besides our will, besides our opinion, at us behind the back.

But the simple logic leads us to such conclusion. Judge for yourself. If "dogs hunters" - aren't late law-enforcement structures if complaints to them from the population - are senseless and useless, so they, probably, are encouraged with the government?

At the level of charge we can't approve it as, I will repeat, we can't unambiguously prove it. But we consider to suspect of it ourselves in the right.

First of all that fact forms the basis for such suspicion that work with the population in the sphere of this problem the government really wasn't conducted. Any public discussions, any sociological polls concerning destiny of homeless animals - it wasn't carried out.

Thus, we consider for themselves dangerous further to be under the leadership of such leaders. After all, it turns out that anybody won't ask our opinion, so, none of the management not in the answer for potentially dangerous social conflicts. To solve these conflicts while they still are subject to peaceful and constructive settlement - the government doesn't gather as it is visible. And it, at least.

Society in Russia is yet ready to protect the right of animals and the present government precisely won't help it with it. We, defenders of animals, found the saving words "causing moral sufferings", that is, became intermediaries between animals and people. But the first sociological polls on the Internet showed - not to prove us it, with us don't reckon, our moral sufferings "aren't included in the law". And it isn't considered with us that pro-governmental minority which furiously supports destruction of dogs. Though, speaking about "causing moral sufferings", it is a question of protection of the rights of people! If don't reckon even with people to whom cause mental anguish how you think, they will be counted with animals? ...

The Russian courts are completely corrupted as in our country dense integration of the state structures with business takes place. To whom will we state our arguments who will listen to us in such conditions? ? ? People in weight don't understand even that it is impossible to pay for documents that thus gate for corruption open! But our government legalized a payment for documents, and very considerable payment, and calls it "state tax"... To us not to get out of this trap...